(04-03-2018 01:07 PM)JRsec Wrote: (04-03-2018 12:02 PM)OrangeDude Wrote: (04-01-2018 08:25 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: JR, you make some excellent points which I'd like to comment on...
(04-01-2018 02:16 AM)JRsec Wrote: It's control by the old ACC core that has kept your conference in 5th place economically, just like it has been Texas that has kept its serfs in the field while they live in the Big House by refusing to grow the Big 12 beyond their own control.
FACT! There have been entire threads about how the old ACC core has blocked things which could/would have increased revenues automatically but at the expense of their control.
All that said, I think the UNC mafia has already lost control, they just don't know it. Duke certainly read the handwriting on the wall when Maryland jumped to the Big Ten, and I have my doubts that they would be willing to sacrifice the conference for their own interests when they know there is a danger that when the music stopped, Duke might be without a chair (sure, they MIGHT get into another conference, but it's far from a sure thing). Take that fear and multiply by 1000 in the case of Wake Forest - another vote lost.
Then, if it's a football vs. basketball decision, you can count on BC and Pitt to vote with the football teams (and probably Syracuse as well). I think the choice of Louisville instead of UConn proves that UNC/UVA no longer rule the ACC... JMO.
Hail Mark,
I agree. And with our new AD having huge ESPN ties, I have no doubt that SU will ultimately side with the football schools as well.
As for why the ACC is currently 5th place economically, I believe that has more to do with when and under what circumstances the ACC's tv contract was negotiated and of course, having both Miami and FSU mediocre by their standards as well.
If all national TV contracts were magically made null and void tomorrow and put out on the market but conferences would also have to remain as they currently are (no poaching allowed by the Greater 2), there is no way I see the ACC being behind either the Big 12 or the PAC.
Obviously the Greater 2 will still be substantially ahead (thanks mainly to their networks - but successful networks are the result of powerful name brands). However, imho, the ACC would be on the next level down and ahead of the other two of the Lesser 3. Of course, this will all be tested soon enough anyway. Within three years of the launch of the ACCN we will know if the ACC is closer to the Greater 2 or simply just more in line with the grouping they are in now.
Cheers,
Neil
Neil, myopic decisions have been made at the behest of Tobacco Road which have impaired the earning potential of the ACC. And which had already strained the relationship with Maryland. That is why I made that comment. Had they not had the hammer on votes I think the ACC would already be in third place financially.
Hail JR,
Yes, I know that you at least understand the overall value of the ACC conference at least in terms with where it stands amongst the Lesser 3 conferences. So I do appreciate that.
Also, as usual, we will continue to slightly disagree as to why it isn't at its true value level. As you point out, there are many threads regarding the history of bad ACC decisions on the various boards here and elsewhere. And I believe I have questioned ACC conference decisions as being behind the times or not well thought out (with the exception of the conference basketball tournament where they were a pioneer) perhaps more than any other poster.
Still many of those disagreements/decisions - scholarships/academic admissions standards; conference size: staying larger (Southern Conference after SEC schools left) when the trend was to go smaller and staying smaller (as the 8, 7, 8, then 9 team ACC) when the trend was to go bigger; as well as a few others not necessary to mention for this post. But are any of those decisions material now, especially since all but expansion with FSU took place prior to the dynamics of college athletics changing in the 80s?
My answer would be -no or perhaps, but probably only marginally so. Sure the academic admissions standards/scholarship issue might have made some ACC programs historically slightly better in football by the time the $$$ dynamics changed, but would even that have been sufficient enough to make any of the Tobacco Road crowd a perceived power in football? In other words Clemson would still have had to have done the heavy lifting in football and it's not as though South Carolina who did withdraw from the ACC was a football powerhouse after they left.
So again, as I see it, other than the cluster#$ck of getting to 12 either in the 90s (when expansion was sunk altogether) or in 2003 (when it actually was voted upon), what other decisions that the Tobacco Road crowd championed/opposed that Maryland may have actually opposed/favored would have resulted in increased revenue? And two of Tobacco Road (NC State and Wake) were in favor of that planned expansion in 2003 as I recall. Besides, as already pointed out by others in this thread expansion to 12 (or more) was always going to involve some institutions from the following list (Miami, Syracuse, Boston College, Pitt, and Virginia Tech) with Notre Dame and Penn State as fool's gold. Outside of maybe West Virginia who else would have been a realistic candidate outside of the 5 listed above?
Lastly, until around 2004 or so the ACC conference distributed a higher per school average of money to its members. So while they were not thinking ahead, in their eyes they probably believed everything was fine. No excuse, but it does put some perspective of at least where their heads were at (particularly UNC and Duke).
What has allowed the Greater 2 to distance itself since then so openly so even the media reports on it now was the explosion of football $$$ in terms of TV contracts and eventually the success of their conference networks.
However, as we both know the disparity in individual program football revenue was always there in the Greater 2 due to their ticket revenues, donations, etc.
I still maintain that the ACC is last now within the Lesser 3 mainly because of the circumstances of their 2011 TV contract negotiations in 2010 (even though it doubled) due to:
1) FSU, Miami, and Clemson all down in football;
2) ACC basketball not being anywhere near what it was from the 1980s until expansion);
3) and ESPN and FOX not working together for premium content (like they later would with PAC and Big 12 TV contracts - yes they had worked together on 2nd tier rights, but not with 1st tier until the following year to try and keep Comcast locked out, etc.).
As always those are my thoughts on this topic and a pleasure discussing it with you.
Cheers,
Neil